Friday, May 29, 2009

I'm starting to wonder if the New York Times is going after Sonia Sotomayor. The front page today had an article entitled "Nominee's Links With Advocates Fuel Her Critics. The article discussed Sotomayor's position on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund ("PRLDF") in the 1980's. She quit that position when she was appointed to the federal judiciary, according to the article. What's strange about this article is that only one "critic" is quoted, and that quote doesn't even mention the PRLDF:

"Curt Levey, executive director of Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group active in judicial nominations, said that “while it’s fine to let your Puerto Rican heritage influence — or any heritage for that matter — influence your positions when you’re on a board, it’s quite a different story when you’re a judge, and I wonder whether she knows the difference.”

That's it! There's nothing in the article to support the allegation near the beginning that "[H]er critics, including some Republican senators who will vote on her nomination, have questioned whether she has let her ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy creep into her decisions as a judge." What critics? Cite one. It sounds like the alleged "critics" are actually the Times.

In any case, that assertion, that one's "ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy" shouldn't effect a judge's decisions, is absurd. Judges are human. They can't slice off their entire life experience and not let it effect their legal analysis. I have no doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts' life experience contributes to his siding consistently with the government, the prosecution, and corporations, as detailed in a recent New Yorker profile. This is exactly why Obama selected Sotomayor - for her life experiences. It's incredibly important to have people of diverse backgrounds interpreting our laws. Each brings a different perspective, just as people from all walks of life come before the Supreme Court to have crucial decisions made about their lives.

Just saw this article in the New York Times: Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament. You've got to be kidding. With Scalia on the court? He makes no bones about his opinions in oral argument and sometimes uses opinions to cudgel opposing viewpoints mercilessly. He's not above making fun of his opposition. This is a ridiculous notion, that anyone is too testy, as long as Scalia's on there.

This is disappointing, but not unexpected and not all bad. Today the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, the ballot measure that limited marriage to straight couples. New York Times article here. The good part of the decision was that they upheld the thousands of same-sex marriages performed during the period before Prop 8 went into effect. This will surely throw a wrench into efforts to stop what seems like a steady march towards legality of gay marriage everywhere. There are now 18,000 valid gay marriages in California. These couples will demand recognition of their marriages by the federal government and other states, undoubtedly leading to many more lawsuits challenging anti-gay marriage laws in those jurisdictions.

Of course, Californians still can enter into legally sanctioned civil unions, with some attendant benefits, unlike residents of most other states, including the one I live in.

Here's the ad released by the marriage equality group Courage Campaign minutes after the decision was made public. Nice song by Regina Spektor.

Anti-Prop 8 demonstrators arrested in San Francisco, including two men who "stood for about an hour in the intersection calmly kissing while demonstrators all around them screamed, "Prop. 8 will go down, San Francisco (is a) big queer town" and other slogans." (emphasis added - these guys have stamina!)

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Just found out about this from Pop Candy. You can download a podcast of The Brothers Bloom director Rian Johnson's commentary, a la DVD, and listen to it on your iPod while you watch the movie in a theater! That's incredibly cool. Download from the apple.com website. Pop Candy's Whitney Matheson was concerned that other audience members could hear it through your headphones.

Rolling Stone post-finale interview with Adam, in which he says his favorite performance was Whole Lotta Love, talks about what kind of debut album he'd like to make ("a collection of different styles"), and says speculation about his sexuality "probably" impacted the final vote. However, he felt like he won just by making it into the finals and that "there's no need to dwell on the negative."

Dorothy Surrenders' take on Adam's loss. I don't know how much of a factor Adam's sexuality was. That's very hard to say. I don't know the demographics of the voters or if they really care about that or not. But I kind of identified with what she says here, on some level.

American Idol winner - wtf? possibly the most depressing thing I've seen on TV in a long time. So horribly wrong. Looking forward to seeing what the judges think. I noticed Simon didn't stand up at the end along with the other judges. Trust Americans to pick the safe, bland middle of the road choice. At least Adam won't have to sing that horrible single.

Weird: Cyndi Lauper playing the dulcimer on Time After Time; Steve Martin playing the banjo; bikini girl.

Painful: Having to sit through 2 freakin' hours of crap for a few seconds of revealing the winner.

Evocative: Brian May of Queen playing with Adam Lambert, reincarnation of Freddie Mercury.

On the other hand, maybe America should be scared of a man who will wear this outfit - (round bling thingy on his thigh certainly reminiscent of handcuffs):

The highlight may have been Adam's outfits. Haha. So...picspam below. Each finalist sang 3 songs. They each picked their favorite performance of the season and repeated it. That was disappointing, as I would have preferred to hear fresh material. Adam sang Mad World, which is definitely my favorite. While his outfit completely rocked, the studio version is much better than his live performance last night. He didn't hit the notes squarely at times, or as the judges would say, at times it was "pitchy". Although none of them said so last night. But the outfit...OMG, I loved it SO MUCH.

Kris chose Ain't No Sunshine, which is a song I really liked, and it was his best performance of the night. I liked the piano on it. Very nice.

Then they performed songs chosen by the show's creator, Simon Fuller. Adam did Change is Gonna Come, a Sam Cooke song and this was his best performance of the night. Absolutely fantastic. As soon as he finished, I wanted to watch him do it again. Amazing. Plus another great outfit, a silvery suit with a turquoise tie and, I think, silver boots!

Kris's song was....can't remember and didn't write it down. It was fine, but boring. Simon said it was like a bunch of guys strumming guitars at home. LOL

The last song of the night was the first single from the season, co-written by judge Kara DioGuardi. I didn't like the song at all. Not even Adam could sell it to me. I preferred his performance of it, not surprisingly. Kris' performance of it was off on some notes.

I'm totally into Adam Lambert right now. I've never watched American Idol before. The snippets I'd seen of it showed a type of singing I don't care for. But a friend sent me a link to Adam Lambert singing "Tracks of My Tears" and I was really impressed. I decided to watch the show to check him out. Whoa! The guy is phenomenal. His glam rocker-goth guy persona is really appealing. But the main thing is his singing. I just love it. My favorite songs of his so far are Mad World, Ring of Fire, If I Can't Have You and Whole Lotta Love. Yes, I'm more than a little in love with him right now, and I'll be sad when American Idol is over. But I'm crossing my fingers that he'll win and that the world will see a lot more Adam Lambert in the future.

This really ticks me off. Why is the media buying into the Republican attempt to bring down Nancy Pelosi? It's not important when Nancy Pelosi knew about CIA torture. What's important is that the CIA tortured with approval from the Bush administration. And may have mislead Congress on the issue. The focus has gotten turn upside down from where it should be. It was a Republican administration that spearheaded and approved torturing detainees in violation of international human rights agreements and possibly other laws. They are the ones responsible, not members of the minority party. The New York Times says in its article on the issue today,"Even if Ms. Pelosi had taken action, it is doubtful it would have averted the firestorm about torture that was to come."